PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.52 - 1.58
1.19 - 3.37
354.5K / 984.1K (Avg.)
-1.64 | -0.94
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
2.81%
Positive revenue growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
153.84%
Positive gross profit growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
29.81%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
33.02%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
33.08%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
34.04%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
33.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.01%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 1.71%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.40%
Slight or no buyback while CSIQ is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-24.60%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3.56%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
308.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 2555.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-40.06%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 22.69%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-47.51%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 108.23%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-2385.62%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-48.88%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-292.11%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-15021.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 574.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-2730.84%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 189.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-35.33%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ is 492.60%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
132.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 132.63% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-41.36%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 23.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
25.43%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 137.06%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.74%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. CSIQ's 7.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
1.15%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 23.52%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.46%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 8.69%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.33%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 7.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
3.89%
Debt shrinking faster vs. CSIQ's 20.02%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
1.06%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-7.43%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.